SynthesisRevista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical2026
Pharmacological therapies for neglected tropical diseases: a systematic review and evidence gap mapping.
Synthesis in Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeglected tropical diseases (NTDs) comprise 21 endemic infections that affect over one billion people worldwide. This study mapped and identified evidence gaps regarding pharmacological therapies for all WHO-recognized NTDs.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed for systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the ClinicalTrials.gov database for ongoing RCTs. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 for SRs and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs. Data were synthesized into evidence and gap maps, and the distribution of evidence was analyzed according to quality.
resultsTwenty-four maps were developed, including 74 SRs, 500 RCTs, and 70 ongoing clinical trials; of these, only seven SRs and 17 RCTs were rated as high quality or as having a low risk of bias, respectively. Trachoma exhibited the highest number of evidence gaps, while Buruli ulcer had the lowest. Taeniasis/cysticercosis presented the highest proportion (31.8%) of high-quality SRs, whereas Chagas disease showed the highest proportion of RCTs with a low risk of bias (18.4%).
conclusionsSignificant gaps remain in the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments for WHO-recognized NTDs. The currently available evidence is predominantly of low methodological quality and is often insufficient to support robust therapeutic conclusions, highlighting the urgent need for rigorously designed clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.